MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY, MSNBC ANCHOR: This morning, my question, is it time to go on offense in the battle for reproductive rights. Plus, a major development in the New Jersey Bridge scandal story and the 12-year-old changing the world one bow tie at a time. But first, on the battlefield of politics, why you must sweat the small stuff.

Good morning. I`m Melissa Harris-Perry. This week we`ve got a little news on an issue we`ve been covering here on MHP show for nearly two years. This week in voter suppression and this week the news is actually kind of good. Thursday a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation that would restore some of the protections in the Voting Rights Act that were struck down by the Supreme Court last year. And on Friday, a Pennsylvania judge struck down that state`s voter id law. Saying it placed an unreasonable burden on the fundamental right to vote. Now, these are small, but critical steps in the right direction. Returning us to our traditional value of expanding the franchise rather than limiting it. Every vote matters. Our nation`s recent experiences remind us that even a fraction of votes in a single location can have, well, history defining effects on national elections. So if you care who will occupy the White House after 2016, you`d better pay attention to who holds offices in the states, which means you`d better know a little something about the communities that make those states up. Case in point, North Carolina.

The political significance of the tar heels state was underscored this week when President Obama visited to promote his efforts to boost the manufacturing industry. It was his first policy related trip of 2014. Now, remember, North Carolina is a battleground state that by a razor`s edge margin went for President Obama in 2008 and then turned back to red in 2012. In between, a political revolution happened in North Carolina. Republicans won control of both houses of the state legislature. For the first time in 140 years. And in 2012, the state elected a Republican governor, giving one party control to the state. Now, the state`s laws are among the most conservative in the country. North Carolina has passed some of the nation`s most restrictive voting laws, which disproportionately affect the poor and racial minorities, groups that traditionally vote Democratic. It cut unemployment benefits by as much that it was disqualified from a federal compensation program for long term jobless benefits. North Carolina eliminated its earned income tax credit, essentially raising taxes on more than 900,000 households earning less than $49,000 a year. State lawmakers also passed a law that could close most of North Carolina`s 16 abortion clinics. And the governor, Pat McCrory, he signed the law despite his campaign promise not to approve any new abortion restrictions.

But these changes did not start at the top of the political ticket. Instead, they started at the bottom. In 2009, in the Wake County School board election, conservative board members were elected with the support of multi-million air conservative and supermarket magnet Art Pope. The new board promptly eliminated a school bussing program, which had been lauded as a model for school integration, and Pope`s work on the school board attracted national attention. By 2010, he had the attention of the conservative strategist Ed Gillespie. Gillespie was working on his red map plan, and putting state legislatures and their redistricting duties under Republican control and Art Pope quickly became a key part of Gillespie`s efforts in North Carolina. Pope, his family, and the groups backed by him spent more than $2 million on General Assembly races in 2010, and of the 22 races Pope targeted Republicans won 18 and took control of the legislature.

Pope is now North Carolina`s state budget director and Ed Gillespie announced this week that he will challenge Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner. And this key player in the Republican takeover of North Carolina, which has raised taxes on some of its poor citizens and cut unemployment benefits, well, he`s running on a platform. You`ve just got to listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED GILLESPIE, VIRGINIA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: If elected I`ll be a servant to the people of Virginia and a leader for policies that grow the middle class and foster upward mobility, enabling people to lift themselves out of poverty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: To be fair, Gillespie didn`t himself cut unemployment or passed voter restrictions in North Carolina. But he did help orchestrate the Republican takeover of the legislature that did. And just as his efforts began at the lower levels of American politics, so, too, has the opposition to North Carolina`s sharp rightward turn. The grassroots "Moral Monday" protests last year gained momentum every week as hundreds of peaceful protesters were arrested for occupying the state legislature and demanding an end to these particular conservative policies. Their next big rally is set for Raleigh, on February 8th. And the movement is spreading. Organizers from a dozen states traveled to Raleigh in December to learn how to start their own "Moral Mondays." And this week, the first "Moral Monday" in Georgia was held at the state capital in Atlanta where about 200 people urged the Republican governor there to expand Medicaid and on Tuesday in South Carolina demonstrators carried a white coffin up the state house steps to represent the people they say could die. The state refuses to expand Medicaid. This is where the real progressive movement is going to have to start. I mean it can`t come whole cloth from the populist mayor of New York City or even from the tough on bank senator from Massachusetts. It must take root among the people in places like Raleigh and Atlanta and Columbia.

Joining me now is Representative Keith Ellison, Democratic congressman from Minnesota, Anthea Butler, professor of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania, Nancy Giles, contributor to "CBS Sunday Morning" and a writer and social commentator. And Katon Dawson, a Republican consultant and former chair of the South Carolina GOP. Thanks to you all for being here.

REP. KEITH ELLISON, (D) MINNESOTA: Thank you.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, congressman, I want to start with you. Because before going to the U.S. House of Representatives you serve in your state legislature .

ELLISON: Sure.

HARRIS-PERRY: And you write about it in your book. Talk to me about -- if I`m an ordinary citizen living somewhere who doesn`t normally watch cable news politics, right? How important is the state legislature versus this federal levels?

ELLISON: They define voter qualifications, so we have 50 or more different ways to elect people. So like in the last election in Minnesota, the conservatives put on a valid measure that would require a photographic identification card from the government, issued by the government before anyone could vote. And people said we could not possibly beat it, but we did beat it and we beat it by a wide margin because we organized and talked to people on the grassroots and we had a multitude of arguments. We said it cost too much, it was unwieldy. We said it didn`t have any factual basis, because there was no voter and posture voting .

HARRIS-PERRY: Right.

ELLISON: Going on. And - but we cobbled all of those logical arguments together and we came up with a winning coalition. So let me tell you. At the state level, that`s where the action is when it comes to who gets to vote and who doesn`t from voter - from disenfranchisement, voter I.D., access to voter polls, to the number of machines, the state is what`s happening.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right. And this - and that point, Anthea, I want to pick up on in part because I think it felt for many - you know, for many again, ordinary folks living their lives, balancing their checkbooks, driving their kids to school it felt like all of a sudden in 2010 there was this Republican takeover, this wave, that came out of nowhere. But it didn`t come out of nowhere, right? It had been built off from like door-catchers to the Senate at that point.

ANTHEA BUTLER, PROF., UNIV. OF PENNSYLVANIA: Exactly. And what people don`t realize as this probably - almost I would say maybe almost a 50-year history of people being put in the school board, the mayor`s office.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

BUTLER: The state legislature, and, you know right wing conservatives being asked to run not just because of political duty, but of religious duty and we`ll get to that when we talk about reproductive rights.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

BUTLER: But in this particular case, when you have conservatives who are motivated, on the liberal side everybody thought, we`ll just go out and we`ll vote and we`ll have an occasional candidate and that`s really great. But what they haven`t thought about is the structural issues that make it very important that you have to be in every place in government. All politics is local.

(CROSSTALK)

BUTLER: And it is very true. All of this starts at a local level. And by the time you get to the national level, these states` rights issues, the kinds of things that make these structures happen have already come out of people`s hands and they go what just happened. You know, and I`m sure everybody in North Carolina is saying the same thing.

HARRIS-PERRY: How does this happen? So, Katon, it does seem to be the part of the answer, though, to what happened in North Carolina. I mean, you know, I`d love to just point to Art Pope and say it`s all his fault and his big money. But part of it - takeover was possible in part, because the Democratic Party in North Carolina was vulnerable, right, to this kind of takeover to these challenges. It seems to me that you all do a really good job of being profoundly organized on one message. How do you guys do that? Do you have like internal memos at the meetings? Is there a hash tag? What is going on with you guys?

KATON DAWSON, REPUBICAN CONSULTANT: It started years and years ago when the Democrats controlled both South Carolina and North Carolina and you - when I was - in the state houses, and South Carolina`s 16 years ahead of North Carolina as far as taking over the bodies. So, we .

HARRIS-PERRY: Taking over the bodies indeed.

DAWSON: We`ll get into that later. But when I was chairman, we didn`t have full majority, so I went after sheriff`s races and changed nine sheriffs from Democrats to Republican .

HARRIS-PERRY: Right.

DAWSON: And then with that you go to solicitors. Solicitor named Trey Gowdy who became a U.S. congressman.

ELLISON: That`s my colleague.

DAWSON: Your colleague. So, when you look at the foreign team, a lot of people think these candidates should show up. From my standpoint, you get them on record early. You find out where they are and you start electing them, and in the south, the pro-life movement is the base of a lot of these elections, it did, and it`s a proud base that I`m with, but what I`m telling you is that - right. You don`t just show up. Politics doesn`t change overnight. Art Pope`s $2 million didn`t change that. What really changed North Carolina was an influx of people and retires. Conservative. That`s one of the things that changed it. The second thing changed was national Democrat politics were not matching up. I ran the last cycle in North Carolina when President Obama had about 42 bricks and mortars in there and we put about 450 people in there fighting that fight, and what we found out in North Carolina was it was different. As everybody was working persuadable voters. It was the Republican base we had to go the last three weeks to, and we had to go, because they were sitting on the sidelines.

HARRIS-PERRY: OK. So I love that you said we split sheriffs and the next thing you know we`re flipping whole state bodies, right? Because, you know, those are those low information elections where 100 people, 200 people can make all the difference in who becomes your sheriff in New Orleans. We vote on the coroner, God help us. I know. But - I know, it is. There`s a lot to be said about that, right? It`s a Southern thing. I do want to look, though, at the Medicaid gap, right? Because you talked about who can be persuaded, right? And in Georgia there are more than 400,000 people who would have gotten Medicaid in North Carolina, more than 300,000 people. In South Carolina, nearly 200,000 people. And that looks to me like a group of people who are not getting Medicaid, who could have gotten it, if, in fact, their governors had been willing to extend it. If I`m a Democrat sitting in those states, I start thinking about how I start flipping it based on that.

NANCY GILES, CONTRIBUTOR, "CBS SUNDAY MORNING": Exactly. And we were talking about this in the green room. People voting against their own interests. And I can`t underscore enough what`s been said at the table as someone who considers herself bright, college educated and never really paid much attention to the smaller votes.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

GILES: You know, the school board, you know. I don`t have children, so I wouldn`t have really think about that. The local votes. And I know so many people who maybe will pay more attention if it`s a mayoral vote.

HARRIS-PERRY: Sure.

GILES: Or if it`s a Senate vote or presidential campaign, but we`ve got to get boots on the ground just like you`re an evil genius.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, yes.

GILES: I want to incorporate everything that`s being said. We`ve got to make sure the people know that the stakes are high.

HARRIS-PERRY: Stick with me. OK, we`ll let your polite southern evil genius reign when we get back. We`re going to take a break right now. And while we go to break we`re going to be listening to music inspired by the "Moral Monday" protests. This is "My Body Politics" by the North Carolina Music Love Army.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Six months ago the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. The court took issue specifically with the formula for determining, which states and jurisdictions have such problematic history on voting rights that they need his federal approval for any changes to their voting laws before they go into effect. The justices had said the formula was outdated and invited Congress to create a new one. Now, for the first time since the ruling a bipartisan group of lawmakers has an actual proposal. And the bill was introduced Thursday by Senator Patrick Leahy and Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner and Congressman John Conyers, and co-sponsored by Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis. Under the bill, states that have had five or more violations of federal voting laws in the past 15 years will need preclearance from the Feds before changing local voting rules. Currently that would cover Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Five fewer states then were previously fully covered. And local jurisdiction would need the preclearance if they had three violations in the past 15 years or if they had persistent extremely low minority turnout over that time. The bill would also make it easier to get a preliminary injunction to brock a problematic law pending trial. One caveat, though. The bill specifically exempts voter I.D. laws saying such requirements are not a violation of the Voting Rights Act and at this point, it does not cover North Carolina, which has some of the most restrictive voting laws in the country.

So, Anthea, this is like one of those good news/bad news stories.

BUTLER: Yeah.

HARRIS-PERRY: Where, OK, bipartisan, looks like we might get a new formula, we don`t just have to walk around with a two slid section five forever, but it also gives away the ghost with the notion that I.D. is inherently not part of the VRA problem.

BUTLER: I know. And that`s really - what it does is it leaves it up to state judges and things like that. That what just happened in Pennsylvania with Governor Corbett having a bad day yesterday finding out that, you know, we won`t have to use our voter I.D. But I am thinking about states like Texas where, you know, voter I.D., you can use your gun permit, you can use your concealed carry permit to get .

HARRIS-PERRY: But not your student ..

BUTLER: But not your student I.D. card, right? So what kind of sense does that make? So, I`m hopeful that this will, you know, help bridge a little bit of a gap. Because I see Texas is almost being the worst in that bunch for a lot of respects, but they`re all equally bad, but the question is, can we find enough consensus to have that voted upon in the House?

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

BUTLER: And that`s where I`m worried about it. Because if we don`t, I think that what we`re going to see in 2014 is a lot more people being taken off the rolls and this won`t get fixed, you know, by November `14, which will make it very problematic.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, and Katon, this is precisely where I want to come with you, then. Because I love the story that you tell about we have good strategy, we`ve got demographic changes, we go get those voters, we pound the pavement. If that is what -- if that`s the issue, then I would be like well, God bless the Republicans because if people agree with you and you get your voters out.

DAWSON: You get one more than they do.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right. Then that`s what democracy is. But then this is something different. Because this isn`t about we go convince the voters to be on our side. This is we suppress the voters most likely to choose the other side and that to me doesn`t feel like it`s healthy for democracy.

DAWSON: Well, the arguments are going to go on, the courts are going to continue. Some states are going to do, others - some laws are going to be more egregious than others, but it`s going to get down to the voter I.D. again, whether it`s right or not. And whether the citizens in the states - will there be protests on the streets? There`s some. But, again, it takes a voter I.D. to get in about everywhere. And that`s where I think sometimes the argument gets lost. It took me one to get in here. Four times - to get in ..

HARRIS-PERRY: But you don`t have a constitutional right to be in here.

DAWSON: Well, I don`t. You invited me.

(LAUGHTER)

DAWSON: Thank you. You are exactly right.

(CROSSTALK)

DAWSON: Or you could turn me away.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yeah. No. Right. I mean - right, nor do I. But - and yet, Congressman, I guess the other point is - I actually also don`t have a constitutional right to vote. In that it is state by state, right? And so what I`m wondering, given your point that there are at least 50 separate and unequal rules and procedures for voting, is it time, congressman, to have a -- an amendment to the U.S. Constitution providing at the federal level the right to vote for every citizen and wipe this mess away?

ELLISON: Yes. And Mark Pocan who`s from Wisconsin and I have a bill to make the right to vote a constitutional amendment and we`re moving it as well as we can, and I think it only makes sense because we really don`t live in the kind of country that was -- we had when we put this voting scheme together. Things have changed in the amount of just inequality and disparity and the way people are treated is just so wide - that it`s just not fair. And so, it`s time to amend the constitution and grant a right to vote to all citizens. But I will say this. You know. Grassroots activism really is the key here.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

ELLISON: And people getting involved like "Moral Mondays" and it`s spreading. You know, in Wisconsin people were out on the streets. In Minnesota we get things on the street. I think this is good for democracy and I`m excited about it.

HARRIS-PERRY: OK. And you took us exactly where we are going next, because when we come back, I`ve got somebody from "Moral Mondays" right here, because up next, the trouble in district 12 that not even Katniss can fix.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Welcome back. You know, district 12 just can`t catch a break. No, no, no, not that district 12. This district 12. North Carolina`s 12TH congressional district. Last weekend we told you about the decision by North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to hold off on filling the 12th district seat just vacated by Mel Watt who`s now heading a Federal Housing Agency until the general election in November, so that leaves the seat in a solidly democratic majority and minority district without a representative for almost a year. Governor McCrory was asked about his decision Wednesday during an interview with a host of MSNBC`s "The Daily Rundown" Chuck Todd.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC ANCHOR: I know people have a low opinion of Congress, but to have basically to disenfranchise nearly a million people and not having a representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, that is not a healthy thing for a year.

GOV. PAT MCCRORY (R ), NORTH CAROLINA: Well, Chuck, I`m sworn to uphold the constitutional laws of North Carolina and I can`t change those laws between now and that election, and, again, I have to uphold the election laws and I made the good decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Joining us now from Washington, D.C. is the Reverend William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP and leader of the "Moral Mondays" movement which has been protesting among other things North Carolina`s voter restrictions and who also sent a letter to Governor McCrory about this question of District 12. Reverend Barber, thank you for being here.

REV. WILLIAM BARBER, NAACP NATIONAL BOARD MEMBER: Thank you so much, Dr. Perry. You know, it`s utterly ridiculous the government says about the law, the fact of the matter is we have the people who can get together and actually comply with the law, you know. Representative Price, Representative Butterfield actually wrote the governor and said we can do better than this. 700,000 people, Republicans, Democrats, black and white, will be left without a representative. It`s just wrong. Over 300 days in a time when the Congress will be dealing with the VRA bill, you know, farm bills, all the things that impact that particular district. And, you know, it took us 90 years, Melissa, from 1900 to 1990 to even get representation in the African American community.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yeah, I mean it`s a crazy little district. You know, it`s worth looking at it again. Congressman Ellis (ph) was sitting here at the table and when he saw how gerrymandered that district was.

BARBER: Right.

HARRIS-PERRY: His mouth kind of fell open. And, of course, we know district 12 was challenged on racial gerrymandering, was redrawn to be a clearly part of then gerrymandered districts, which is legal and constitutional, but that said, you know, I guess I`m wondering, Reverend Barber, if I went down today to a barbershop in Greensboro and asked people, you know, do you know that you live in district 12 and do you know that you are not going to have a representative, what would they say about that?

BARBER: Well, people are livid about it. I mean, they really are, because they recognize that this is taxation without representation. Now, the other part of that, Melissa, is that if we had free clearance in place, this decision of the governor would have to be pre-cleared. The fact is now that we don`t because we`re looking for this reauthorization of section four, it makes this even more problematic. The Republicans stalled on Mayor Watt being appointed and now governor McCrory is again being the governor of denial. He has denied Medicaid, denied unemployment, he`s tried to deny voting rights and now he`s trying to deny representation tor this district.

HARRIS-PERRY: Hold on one second. I want to come out to you, Nancy, because you`re having this reaction.

GILES: I feel sick.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yeah. That feels to me like the kind of every woman, every man reaction, must be when they hear this story. So, tell me what you`re thinking of this?

GILES: Number one, how can the governor just say no with a little laugh in his voice, yeah, I`m complying with the law and not have a representative for that - for that area, for so many people, how is that allowed? I mean, again, I tell you one thing that`s really interesting about this president because a lot of it filters down from that. I have learned more about how the government works on the lower, lower, lower, local, local levels than I have ever learned before and I`m just shocked that this many people cannot have a representative at such a crucial time for people to be represented.

HARRIS-PERRY: Let`s listen. Because I want to listen to this. Because Governor McCrory said it wasn`t a particularly crucial time. He said it`s a couple of months and it doesn`t make any difference. Let`s take a listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. MCCRORY: My decision was even supported by the very liberal editorial page of the Charlotte "Observer" and it was also supported by three of the African-American Democratic candidates that are running for Mel Watt`s seat.

I think the only difference in any other option was about two months. And Chuck, you know and I know that not much goes on in Washington between July and the election anyway, which is a sad commentary on Washington politics.

TODD: I know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Representative Ellison, you`ll be doing anything there between July and November?

ELLISON: I think we`ll be pretty busy. We`ve been busy every single year. I`ve been in Congress. And here`s the other thing. Just being in Washington and voting is not the only thing members of Congress do. Being in the district, listening to people, talking to them, holding meetings, talking about, you know, we`re doing constituent services, helping people get passports and Social Security checks and VHS. It`s all critical. This is one of the more amazing abdications of responsibility I`ve ever seen.

HARRIS-PERRY: Well, I will say in terms of not abdicating responsibility, Mel Watt`s team is staying in place in that district office to do some of that constituent service, because they clearly do care about that, but Reverend Barber, let me ask you about the other part of it we heard Governor McCrory say when he says hey, three of the six North Carolina 12 Democratic candidates, all of them African American, are down with the November election. We checked. That does seem to be true. Why would those candidates support this timing?

BARBER: Well, that`s why in the NAACP we have no permanent - there is no permanent enemies on the permanent interest. It doesn`t matter if someone wants to, you know, even stay in bondage. All of us don`t want to stay in bondage. What we want is constitutional representation. So that doesn`t matter. He`s called to govern for the best interest of the people, not to pick out two or three people and then decide to implement something that`s going to cause taxation without representation. Melissa, here we are in North Carolina. He is denying this. We have the worst redistricting law since the 19th century. He passed the worst voters oppression law that we`ve seen since Jim Crow and now we are in the middle of this discussion about section 4 that`s actually going to leave North Carolina uncovered, South Carolina uncovered, Alabama uncovered. These actions are unacceptable. This - we happen to have an amendment. It`s sad that one day after the actual birthday of Dr. King we`re having a discussion about voting rights that have taken us backwards add not forward.

HARRIS-PERRY: And particularly, I mean I just want to point out again for folks who may not know the North Carolina map. That district in part runs through Greensboro. Greensboro is where we saw those initial sit-ins of African-American men from North Carolina ANT sitting there on those Woolworth`s counters, challenging precisely this sort of things. This was ground zero on the civil rights movement. It is ground zero now.

BARBER: Franklin Graham - Franklin McCain was buried just yesterday who was a part of those civil rights movements. This district and the first district are the districts that were carved out as a result of the Voting Rights Act, but it took 90 years. I want people to hear this. 90 years for North Carolina to get representation African Americans in the U.S. Congress after George White was the last one pushed out in 1901 at the end of reconstruction. That`s why we`ve got to be very serious. And you keep hearing me push on this issue about this section for the voter rights and what`s been proposed. It is not good for us. We have to - anything that does not cover, pre-clear North Carolina, Alabama, Virginia and South Carolina, anything that gives people five chances to violate the law before we can be pre-cleared and anything that undermines the voter - says that voter I.D. is not a part of what can be used to decide pre-clear is just wrong, it`s backwards. And we`ve got to spend .

HARRIS-PERRY: That`s not enough. I`ll tell you what, Reverend Barber. I`ve got a little time on Tuesday. I think I`m going to come down to North Carolina and say hey to you. All right. Rev. Barber, thank you so much. We have much more to get to this morning, including Congressman Ellison`s new memoirs. But first when we come back, my colleague Steve Kornacki, he has a major development in the New Jersey bridge story. Local politics matter, people.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: This morning we have new reporting connected to the administration of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and it`s a story that broke right here on MSNBC only hours ago on "Up with Steve Kornacki." The mayor of Hoboken told Steve in an exclusive television interview why she believes her city is being denied critical Hurricane Sandy aid. Now, you remember that the city of Hoboken in the aftermath of the storm was 80 percent under water. Hoboken remains vulnerable to another storm and the mayor says the reason her city is not getting the funds it needs has nothing to do with the fact that she didn`t endorse Chris Christie for reelection. Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer says members of Christie`s administration warned her that her town would be starved of hurricane relief money unless she approved a lucrative redevelopment plan favored by the governor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAWN ZIMMER, MAYOR OF HOBOKEN: The bottom line is, it`s not fair for the governor to hold Sandy funds hostage for the city of Hoboken, because he wants me to give back to one private developer and it`s important that -- I know it`s very complicated for the public to really understand all of this, but I have a legal obligation to follow the law, to bring balanced development to Hoboken. I cannot give a windfall to one property owner because the governor wants me to in exchange for the Sandy fund, so I`ll tell you, I feel like I`m literally between a rock and a hard place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: We should note that a spokesman for Governor Christie issued this statement. Quote, "Mayor Zimmer has been effusive in her public praise of the governor`s office and the assistance we`ve provided in terms of economic development and Sandy aid. What or who is driving her only now to say such outlandishly false things is anyone`s guess." And "Up with Steve Kornacki" received this statement from the director of strategic communications with the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. She say, quote, "Mayor Zimmer`s allegation that on May 16th, 2013 Commissioner Constable conditioned Hoboken`s receipt of Sandy aid on her moving forward with a development project is categorically false." Joining the table now is Steve Kornacki, host of "Up with Steve Kornacki." All right, Steve, these are major claims. It`s also very complicated. So, I tried to get a general idea of it. What do you see as the key issue in this moment?

STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC ANCHOR: So, there are several things and the story line itself connects high ranking people in Christie`s administration. It connects the Port Authority and the law firm that is run by the chairman of the Port Authority, David Samson, and Chris Christie`s, you know, close confidant David Samson. And so, basically, what happened was, there`s this plot of the land in Hoboken that`s right for - potentially right for some kind of development. This group, the Rockefeller Group owns it and they`re represented by Wolff and Samsons. The name of law firm is David Samson`s law firm. He`s the chairman of the Port Authority. Port Authority paid for a study on redeveloping on whether this land should be declared, you know, an area need a redevelopment -- it`s a developer`s dream to get this designation.

The planning board in Hoboken did not go along with that designation, and when that happened, the mayor of Hoboken got a phone call from the governor`s office, saying Lieutenant Governor is going to be in town in a couple of days. He wants to do an event sharp right with you. So they did the event at the sharp right, hey, business is open, posting - she says lieutenant governor pulled her aside after said and said, listen, this is not right, this is not the way it`s supposed to be. But if you want your Sandy aid, all (inaudible) is being held, but if you want it, you have to move forward on this development project. You have to move forward on it.

A couple of days later, she`s doing this event, the mayor is doing this event on public television at Monmouth University, a Sandy anniversary event, and the Department - or the commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs, you saw her quoted there, is on stage next to her. And she says they`re both miked up, they`re waiting to go on and he makes the same explicit threat to her, linking Sandy funds to this development project.

HARRIS-PERRY: OK, so a couple of things I want to be sure that we get on the table here. There`s not at this point any allegation that the Rockefeller Group itself has been -- they just seem to be part of this, but not that they commissioned anyone to say this or to do this. Is that right?

KORNACKI: That`s right. And in terms of what you have, there`s no evidence pointing to like any kind of wrongdoing right now by like David Samson. What we know is his law firm represents the Rockefeller group. You have - we have emails from people of his law firm copying Davis Samson, the chairman of the Port Authority, and writing to the people in Hoboken trying to apply pressure to get this thing moving on, you know.

HARRIS-PERRY: No, obviously this mayor is now going to come under - Mayor Zimmer is going to come under significant scrutiny about whether or not there are reasons beyond just sort of her saying in this moment, look, I`m trying to do what is right. Right? In part because this is occurring at the time that the bridge scandal has become national news. But this is not linked directly to the bridge scandal. So, folks are going to ask, why talk about this now, why not tell it when it happened. How do you see this proceeding in terms of the fundamental questions that are going to be asked of her on what she`s alleging here?

KORNACKI: I have to say just as we`re reviewing the story this week that I find her very credible for a few reasons. And one of the reasons is, I think people looking at this nationally might be inclined to say it`s a Democratic mayor, Republican governor, he`s down. Oh, of course, this is Democratic way doing a pile on. There`s been - there`s a faction of Democrats in New Jersey who are pro Chris Christie Democrats. And Dawn Zimmer in many ways was the face of the pro-Chris Christie Democrats. When she came to office in Hoboken, she endorsed his local property tax initiative. This is controversial among Democrats. His first town hall meeting on the subject, she invited him to Hoboken to have it. He was her partner in many ways on many projects in Hoboken. She continues to this day.

On our show, we asked her about Chris Christie, she believes his first four years as governor, there were a lot of good things. She believes that were accomplished during that. It`s just that she got caught up in this redevelopment issue. It was on opposite side of him, and it`s apparently, this project was apparently so important to him and then there`s the fact of this diary. I mean she recorded this in her diary at the time. She shared the diary with us. And, you`ve got, you know, mundane entries in the diary and then she`s talking, just pouring her heart out about trying to grapple with the Chris Christie she believed in versus the Chris Christie who`s now making - his administration making threats.

HARRIS-PERRY: Can you stay with us? We`ve got a table of folks here including a Republican who I want to ask in part does this ever get hot enough that Republicans are going to want Chris Christie to step down as the head of RGA? I also want to just sort of open up, because these are new revelations, and I think there are questions that all of us have about it. So, stick with us for just a little bit longer.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: We`re back and talking about the new developments in the question of Chris Christie and his use of - potentially use of political influence that were alleged today on "Up with Steve Kornacki." And I just wanted to give you all an opportunity to ask Steve some of the question about what we`ve learned.

GILES: Well, to start with, Steve, I`ve lived in (INAUDIBLE). I`ve been here 13 years, which is the neighboring county to Hoboken. So, I know and I have a lot of friends that live there how damaged they were during Sandy and how they`re still struggling, so I guess I would say is that do you think why Dawn Zimmer comes out now and talks about the disparity between the money that she asks for and the money that she got? The town is still suffering.

KORNACKI: Yeah, I mean, look, there`s one last chance, realistically speaking now. That Christie got a second pot of money from HUD, that he can get out in grants, but there`s one realistic last chance for Hoboken to get the money that it`s looking for to save itself from a future storm and it comes from this sort of a race to the top style competition that HUD has. And Hoboken is a finalist thread, there were one of ten finalists for that, so it may be that, you know, this attracts a little bit of attention to it. Because we didn`t have time on the air, but they took me through off the air. The resiliency planning that they`ve done, you know, she actually - she sits on - she was appointed by President Obama to his climate change panel at the end of December. She has spoken around the world on resiliency issues. They have some topnotch, you know, internationally respected resiliency work and proposals the place.

GILES: Right.

KORNACKI: So they are hopefully they can get this grant.

ELLISON: Let me ask you about political resiliency.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

ELLISON: So after the news broke on the bridge thing, he comes and does this long press conference and everybody`s thinking, wow, maybe he`s going to survive this. Can he survive this?

KORNACKI: Well, this is - we talk about like hardball politics in New Jersey, and, you know, that governor, whoever was going to take what leverage here she has and they are going to use it to get what they want. And people kind of accept that, but this is Sandy. This is Sandy. This is a governor who part of his political rehab this past week, goes down to the shore.

ELLISON: That`s right.

KORNACKI: Goes down to the Sandy towns and he`s like - hey, everybody. Do you remember me? I`m the guy who led you through Sandy.

HARRIS-PERRY: And we`re all willing to put up with varieties of kind of corruption. I mean that`s, you know, I`ve lived in Chicago, I`ve lived now in New Orleans, right? There is this like - when Blagojevich appear to be selling a Senate seat that was, right, kind of the end of it and you know we will send the governor in Louisiana to jail. Like I mean so corruption and hardball politics is one thing, but like when you get to a certain level, and these are all still allegations at this point, but they do seem potentially harmful in a way to me, Katon, that I mean this is the man who`s the head of the RGA. And it`s going to come to a point where he`s going to get a phone call saying you`ve been the head of the RGA. It`s bad for us.

GILES: Republican Governors Association?

HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, sorry, Republican Governors Association.

DAWSON: Well, one thing I can tell you about Republican Party politics and especially presidential primary politics, and go back to Mark Sanford meeting his fair, apologizing and immediately resigning from the RGA. He didn`t want his personal situation to impact what is to me the most important thing in politics. Much more important the last thing than presidential politics or governor seats. That`s where redistricting happens, that`s where rubber meets the road. That`s where we govern as Republicans, the 157 million Americans who control in GOP controlled states. We don`t control .

(LAUGHTER)

HARRIS-PERRY: I`m frightened.

DAWSON: But you should be, but my part - my part is this apology -- and I talked to Steve. I`ve listened to other people thinking this is Jersey, this is the Jersey shore. The Republicans did watch him call the president in the end, which we saw was very unusual in the middle of a presidential race. We saw that as cementing his re-election. That`s what - that`s how I saw it. We`re going to go and cement. So my point is, you know, this is one more shoe to drop on this. And you can apologize, but you can`t cover up the fact that if you didn`t tell the truth and that`s what`s coming next.

HARRIS-PERRY: Steve, this has been amazing reporting. These are real issues. This is not like made up sort of outrage and so I appreciate your reporting and that of your team. Thank you to Steve Kornacki. Your team are delivering great reporting on this. And up next, what I found so moving about this book by Congressman Ellison. For all the bad we`ve been saying there`s a lot of optimism about America in this book.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Congressman Keith Ellison`s mom is from Louisiana. And she makes gumbo. And on nights when young Keith would bring friends for dinner, his mother never turned anyone away. Instead she`d just some water to the gumbo so that there would be enough for all. Today, Representative Keith Ellison says we need to do the same thing in our national policy. Rather than turn the hungry away, we need to add some water to the gumbo and practice what he calls the politics of generosity. Now, in his new book called "My Country to the V: My Faith, My Family, Our Future, " Ellison shares his story from his Detroit roots to being the first non-white person Minnesota has ever elected to Congress, and the first Muslim American ever elected to Congress. He also outlines what the politics of generosity look like. So Representative Keith Ellison, tell me what are the politics of generosity? What does it look like?

ELLISON: Well, the politics of generosity stem from the idea that we all need to eat, we all need to retire, we all want to see our kids get a good education and develop our minds. Our country is the richest country in the history of the world and this country has never been richer than it is now.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yeah.

ELLISON: We can make sure that there is a reliable path toward economic security for every American.

HARRIS-PERRY: There literally is enough gumbo in the pot for everybody.

ELLISON: There`s enough.

HARRIS-PERRY: We just have got to share it.

ELLISON: We don`t have to send anybody out. And the thing is, is that we have a politics of scarcity and the politics of scarcity is there`s not enough, we have got to cut Head Start, we`ve got to have chained CPI, so this - because the seniors are getting too much money. But this is all driven by the idea that there`s not enough, but I believe that there is enough. And, as a matter of fact, there is enough. And the only question is shall we share it. So like, you know, this issue of low wages and the minimum wage, we`ve seen dramatic profits being reaped from our nation`s corporations, in McDonald`s, Walmart. These are wildly profitable companies and yet they are paying people $7.25. $8.25. Stuff like that. It`s like look, you know, you may not have as massive a profit as you had.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yeah.

ELLISON: But maybe if the people who work for you could, you know, afford the hamburgers that they are cooking.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yeah. It would stimulate the economy. We know that when poor folks have a little bit more, they spend it and it stimulates the economy. In addition to our politics of generosity. You also outlined the politics of courage. And specifically look to Representative Barbara Lee. And I`d like to listen to the moment that you signal us to here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BARBARA LEE (D) CALIFORNIA: September 11th changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. Some of us must say let`s step back for a moment, let`s just pause, just for a minute, and think through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS-PERRY: Your response is there.

ELLISON: Well, it spiraled out of control a little bit, didn`t it?

HARRIS-PERRY: Yep.ELLISON: You know, I mean Iraq, longest - you know, longer than Vietnam. All kinds of domestic issues were unraveling, these NSA issues to this moment that stem from the Patriot Act, which was sparked by that tragic moment in September 11, 2001. I think Barbara Lee is an amazing example of courage. Because you can listen to that tape. And tell she`s scared.

HARRIS-PERRY: She can feel it.

ELLISON: You can feel it, because if you`ve had the pleasure of being in her presence, you know, she`s bold, she`s always got a wonderful smile, but in that moment she is feeling the weak of the moment, but she -- that`s courage, right? Courage isn`t not being scared.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

ELLISON: It`s moving through your fear and Barbara Lee, Paul Wellstone, you know, these people, you know, they inspire me, you know, and that`s who I want to be like when I grow up.

(LAUGHTER)

HARRIS-PERRY: We`re basically out of time, but I don`t want to leave without pointing to a moment of courage of your own. Part of what that post-9/11 and the spiraling out of control Iraq was also the - the kind of generation of an anti-Muslim bias in the country.

ELLISON: Yes.

HARRIS-PERRY: that was articulated more frequently and yet you in the moment of being sworn into the U.S. Congress put your hand on Thomas Jefferson`s Koran, which I see as an act of courage and the reaffirmation of the faith of the American people that we can have differing faith and be one people.

ELLISON: Yeah, I mean that`s the idea - from many to one. E Pluribus Unum, we are united in our belief that all Americans have due process, have the right, have equal dignity and yet we come from very diverse places and it`s all right. You know, the bottom line is that nothing - none of the great things about America are guaranteed. We have to fight for these things. People have laid their lives on the line for them. And if you look at the reverend down there with the "Moral Mondays", they`re laying their life on the line for the great America now. All I want to say -- I know we`ve got to wrap is that look, you know, the pessimists are not the realists. Because good things happen all the time. We were in slavery, now we`re not. We were in Jim Crow, now we are not. Women couldn`t vote. Now they can. My point is the people of this time have got to buck up and make a better world for the people to come.

HARRIS-PERRY: Because the better always happens, but it only happens.

ELLISON: Only happens.

HARRIS-PERRY: through struggle.

ELLISON: That`s it.

HARRIS-PERRY: To read an excerpt of the congressman`s new book please stop by the Grio.com. Congressman Keith Ellison, thank you for spending time with us this morning.

ELLISON: Thanks.

HARRIS-PERRY: And coming up next, turning the tide on reproductive rights, how women are fighting back against the mounting restrictions and the frank discussion about the ugly and even threatening harassment that someone is faced online. There`s, of course, more Nerdland at the top of the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: (AUDIO GAP) Melissa Harris-Perry.

Nerdland, I know that as nerds, we would rather be lovers and thinker, not fighters. But today, I want us to channel our inner Sun Tzu, because I want to talk about "The Art of War".

Now, make no mistake -- the reproductive health policies we have seen emerge from statehouses all across the country amount to nothing short of an all-out assault to take back the gains made by Roe v. Wade.

This is no brute force, smash and grab operation we`re talking about it here. Uh-uh. This is an efficient, methodical and so far, highly effective effort to a road of reproductive choice protections guaranteed to women by the Supreme Court`s decision in Roe.

In an article in this month`s "Rolling Stone" magazine, the president of the anti-reproductive rights group Americans United for Life is quoted sounding like she`s taking a page straight out of Sun Tzu`s book. According to the magazine, in a 2011 interview, she said, "We don`t make frontal attacks. Never attack where the enemy is strongest."

Pay attention here to the strategy because if you don`t look closely, you might not see it until it`s too late. It is a slow loss of liberty and autonomy by a thousand tiny attacks from a steady onslaught of policies mostly from Republican-led state legislatures, more abortion restrictions passed in the last three years than in the last two decades, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Everything from Trap laws that impose burdensome and medical unnecessary requirements on abortion providers that can force them out of business to attacks on health care coverage that prevent women from paying for abortions using private insurance or policies purchased on the new health exchanges. Even mandatory counseling that can sometimes include information that is irrelevant or misleading. That visit often followed by a 24-hour waiting period and an additional trip to a provider before the procedure can be performed, requirements that women seeking abortions must first undergo ultrasounds to listen to the beat of its heart. Then, there are 20-week abortion bans that posed a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade allowance for abortions, up to the point of viability at 24 weeks.

These aggressive policies attempt to lay bare the big picture for the final decisive battle, a Supreme Court showdown to roll back the gains of Roe v. Wade. And this week when the enemies of reproductive rights came knocking at the gates, the court refused to let them in. The justices punted on considering Arizona`s 20-week abortion ban, a case that could have forced a challenge to Roe v. Wade. But that was this time advocates for reproductive justice, no it`s not going to last.

That`s why they`re devising a new tactical approach of their own, going on offense in this policy fight and using that same weapon, policy to fight back. Think of it as like political judo, it`s a martial arts practice that enable a smaller fighter to defeat a bigger stronger opponent using a key strategy, turning the opponent`s size and strength from an asset into a liability.

NARAL Pro-choice America is taking all of those restrictive abortion measures and making this pledge to the governors who signed for the law. You stood for these laws, you signed these laws, now, if you`re up for re-election this year, you`re going to have to run on them.

This week in "The Nation" magazine, NARAL president Elise Hogue told the writer Zoey Carpenter that the strategy is to shift the momentum and the reproductive justice fight to, quote, "force these anti-choice extremists who hold political office to actually run on and defend anti-choice records."

Joining me now David S. Cohen, professor of law at Drexel University, Anthea Butler, professor of religious studies and graduate chair of the religion of the University of Pennsylvania, Nancy Northup, who is president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Katon Dawson, national Republican consultant, and former chair of the South Carolina Republican Party.

So, Nancy, self-defense teaches women get on the ground, kick with your legs, don`t try to go right -- you know, don`t try to go arm to arm because that`s not necessarily where the strength is. Is this what this new strategy is, all right, you guys want to sign this, run on this?

NANCY NORTHUP, CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: Well, right. I think we`re going to see that last year was an absolute turnaround point in the fight over women`s access to reproductive health care. We saw going on offense right and left.

We saw Wendy Davis do that filibuster in Texas, and she is now soaring in her run for governor of Texas. We saw Albuquerque voters turn down a 20-week ban. When they got a chance to go to the poll instead of the politicians, they said, no, we don`t want these kind of extreme measures.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

NORTHUP: We saw the introduction in the U.S. Congress, the Women`s Health Protection Act with 33 cosponsors in the Senate, more than 90 in the House, which says we even got to stop these restrictions at the state level. Your zip code can`t determine whether you have constitutional rights.

So, last year was a turnaround and it`s going keep on going.

HARRIS-PERRY: All right. So, I want to go back for a second to the actual strategy of opponents of reproductive rights for a moment, because it does feels to me, David, as though the actual Roe v. Wade decision itself is part of what opens up and allows this possibility that the multiple trimesters, the notion that there is a point in which the state has an interest.

So, talk to me. Is Roe a sufficient decision for us to continue to rest reproductive rights on?

DAVID S. COHEN, DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Well, Roe had promised but the problem was it was cut back in Casey in 1992, because Casey allowed -- Casey was the Supreme Court case that allowed a lot more restrictions from the state. It was basically the Supreme Court saying that you can do things that are burdensome on women`s rights as long as they`re not unduly burdensome and ever since Casey, we`ve seen the courts and lower courts be more receptive to infringement on women`s rights and women`s access to abortion.

So, Casey has really opened up the floodgates and with Justice Kennedy who`s perceived as the swing vote really seemingly approving almost any restriction, as long as it`s not an absolute criminalization of abortion, it`s really troublesome what Casey has allowed.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, Katon, as much as we talked in the last hour about the ways in which Democrats often kind of can`t hold themselves completely together to have a clear strategy, in the case of women`s reproductive rights, I`ve got to say. I got to agree with Nancy, this was the moment when on the left, you saw clear language, war on women. It became the framework. Republicans had to address whether or not they were, in fact, committing a war on women, right, and once you give up the framing, you start to lose.

Are you guys going to lose? I mean really begin to lose, if this is the central issue on which the Republicans are forced to run.

KATON DAWSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, Republicans will lose in the primaries if they back up on the pro-life movement. That`s what will happen. It is the basis especially in the Southeast corridor where I practice my business. It`s the basis that among other thing it`s in every party`s platform. It`s in the national party`s platform. It`s one of things that divides the two parties. There are pro-life Democrats but they don`t vote at the ballot box.

Pro-life Republicans vote that at the ballot box, whether it`d be a presidential election or any other election. And those are just facts.

It`s also -- you hear politicians and I do a lot of times when they have divisive crowds talk about the civil rights of the unborn and the civil rights -- and I know that that will start a whole other discussion, but we -- this is -- this is the terminology we use. We live in a country that spends enormous resources on trying to save nine coal miners in Pennsylvania, enormous resources on trying to talk somebody off the Brooklyn Bridge.

And this is -- the pro-life movement didn`t stand down. They`re still there. They`re still so strong and they will hold you accountable. So, it will be a fight but it`s going to cross both parties` lines.

HARRIS-PERRY: All right. All right. Stick with me. You`ve drawn some things that I think have become central parts of how we talk about this. I don`t want to say I disagree with you on the civil rights.

DAWSON: I think.

HARRIS-PERRY: In fact, actually what I want to do is when we come back, I want to make the claim if that`s going to be the discourse, if discourse is the personhood and that from the beginning fertilized eggs have civilized rights, let`s go ahead and do that and let`s talk about what the civil rights of all children ought to be and whether or not Republicans can get on that set of policy agenda. Stay right there when we come back.

Also, why 35-B is so critical in the debate over reproductive rights.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Years ago, I accompanied a friend to an appointment to end an unwanted pregnancy. Now, I expected to hold her hand, to sit with her, to hug her, to cry with her if it came to that.

But what I hadn`t anticipated, with having to shield her while we walked the gauntlet just to get in the door. A crowd of people, some shouting, some quietly imploring, some trying to condemn her, others trying to convince to change her mind, showing images, all turning her from a woman simply seeking a medical procedure into a target.

That was a day I first became aware of the vulnerability of woman who lacked the resources to end a pregnancy quietly and privately to a personal position. This week, these women, those whose reproductive choices are subject to public scrutiny in abortion clinics were the heart of the case considered by the Supreme Court. At issue was a Massachusetts law passed in 2007 to create a buffer zone, 35 feet of safe space outside of clinics, to separate patients from protesters.

The question before the court was whether the buffer zones were a reasonable response to a history of violence and harassment outside the clinics, or an unconstitutional intrusion into the right of free speech.

So, for me, part of working as an escort experience was going to that whole point that Katon was bringing up earlier, about, oh, civil rights and the civil rights of the unborn and I keep thinking, but what about the rights of the born, of those who are walking around and experiencing life. What about the rights of these women, of their children who are often already preexisting before they made the decision to terminate this pregnancy.

Can we possibly push the right to have to respond to that?

ANTHEA BUTLER, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Yes, exactly. I think part of what`s going on is that we have sacralized this one piece so much that real people, real life women who are in a position where they have to make these decisions are being ignored.

The whole thing about being in front of the clinics where you see the fetuses and chopped up stuff and everything else, this is the scare tactic. But what was so interesting about that "Rolling Stone" article by Janet Rottman (ph) is that she says, you know, Randall Terry news, like we couldn`t get any traction doing this one thing, so we changed it this way, it will be easier.

And I think we need a buffer zone. It`s not about taking away anybody`s free speech. You can stand outside in 35 feet and do what you want. But when women are being accosted, you know, presented with screaming and yelling and saying you`re killing your baby, and all this other kind of stuff, you`re impinging upon their rights as well. And I thing that the people who feel so strongly pro-life don`t realize they`re infringing on the rights of others who are trying to exercise their rights to do what they want to.

Rights go both ways. They don`t go one way just because you have a hardened ideology.

And I think to go back to Katon`s point, for a minute, I think that you may say pro, but if we start putting this the negative and making people run on the negative part of what is happening, the negative piece that women can`t get prenatal care, they can`t get gynecological examinations, they can`t get all the kind of care that they would need, not to be in a position the get pregnant in the first place, then that makes it a different kind of run. It`s not just pro-life. It`s pro "you don`t want these women to have a life". And that`s the point.

It`s like if you change this conversation, it becomes something else different altogether and that`s where I think there`s an attraction, especially with younger women who want to keep their reproductive rights, who might be conservative but they don`t want to have to deal with this whole thing about you`re going to tell me what to do with my body.

HARRIS-PERRY: And one aspect of that, I mean, I think, you know, what you`re saying there is key, and this, you know, we typically think of it as the protesters versus the women who are seeking medical services. But there`s also the clinic providers, there`s the doctors and the nurses and the receptionists who themselves have been in danger. That`s part of that 35 feet buffer zone too as well.

COHEN: Buffer zones are good because they protect women who are seeking basic medical care from being harassed but they also prevent violence and help to ensure safety of clinical workers. We`re not talking just doctors. We`re talking anyone who works at a clinic, who suffers harassment daily, threats daily. And we have to remember that in Massachusetts in particular, there`s a real history of violence.

In 1994, two clinic receptionists at Planned Parenthood, in pre-term, Shannon Lowney (ph) and Leann Nichols (ph), were murdered because they were abortion providers. That has happened to six other people working in abortion in this country`s history. Most recently, Dr. George Tiller in 2009.

This is a real risk that people suffer through every day to get to work and to work, and buffer zones don`t cure the problem, but they provide a space. Paul Hill who was one of the protesters who killed a doctor in Florida stood right outside the clinic. He was able to get close access to the clinic in Pensacola, Florida. There was no buffer zone. Buffer zones help protect people`s safety.

HARRIS-PERRY: Nancy --

NORTHUP: Well, I was just going to say, they also allow -- if you think about it, you know, we have a history of people who want to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights -- their right to go to school, their right to vote, their right to access with respective health services and all the buffer zone is saying stand aside, let people through. You should haven`t to go through a gauntlet of protesters to vote, or to go to school or to get health care.

HARRIS-PERRY: And the people who have to walk that gauntlet are a subset of all the women who have terminations. I just -- I just want to always kind of point this out, that if you are wealthy and have either private insurance or the capacity to pay individually, you can walk into a doctor`s office. It is not targeted in this way. You can walk into a hospital that is not targeted this way.

It is a very specific group of people who end up with this kind of shaming, potential violence, angst, sort of directed at them.

NORTUP: Oh, that`s right. And also, people who are also coming to get their, you know, their --

HARRIS-PERRY: Their pap smears and their birth control pills.

NORTHUP: Birth control pills and all that.

And again, this does -- I have protested many times in my life. Of course, I support the right to express an opinion.

HARRIS-PERRY: Of course, of course.

NORTHUP: This is just a law about not blockading, not obstructing, not congregating in front of the clinic. Step aside, let the people through, express your opinions peacefully.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, that does feel like to me like that is consistent, Katon, with Republican values. Or conservative values, that -- of course we can have differences of opinion. Of course, we know that the issue of reproductive rights is a central dividing line but that your opinion doesn`t, in fact, give you the right to stand there and block someone from something that is constitutional protected.

DAWNSON: You`re exactly right. And it would be my personal opinion, especially I think in the home state that I live, that anybody that puts their hands on a woman at any time, or -- I can pretty well assure you that in South, they`ll go to jail almost immediately.

And if that`s the tactic they want to take, then there`s a good chance we`ll put them in jail. Now, I understand the protests. I understand that. But when you start infringing on these zones we`re talking about, attacking a woman for making that decision, you can attack in all kind of ways.

HARRIS-PERRY: I mean, no, these are mostly verbal attacks. These are shaming and yelling and sort of narrating and showing the images. They`re not -- I mean, we do know they can be attached to acts of violence but I`m not suggesting that those protesters inside those 35 feet are necessarily reaching out and grabbing but you do feel when you`re walking with someone, when you`re serving as a guide, you do sort of put your hands up over that person in part to put your head down.

But that I mean, like can you imagine if you`re going for kidney dialysis, or for a podiatrist appointment, or for any other medical appointment, and you have to work through that sort of you know, sort of shaming experience?

NORTHUP: And Massachusetts is saying everybody step aside.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. The pro and --

NORTHUP: Pro-choice, step aside.

DAWSON: Both sides. True.

NORTHUP: Just let people through. Make your points to the side. The First Amendment`s protected, but you can`t congregate and block access.

HARRIS-PERRY: More on this when we come back, the question of whether or not it is time to be on offense and what offense looks like.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Supporters of reproductive right got a victory in North Carolina on Friday. A federal judge struck down a North Carolina law that required abortion providers to give women an ultrasound and describe the image even if a woman asks them not to. The judge ruled that the law was a violation of free speech.

So, David, why -- how is that a free speech violation there?

COHEN: Well, in this regard, it`s telling doctors what to say, and it`s infringing on the doctor/patient relationship, because if a doctor says that I can treat this women and I can have -- ensure her health in a particular way and the state saying you have to do something different, then that`s an infringement on that relationship.

And also, it goes beyond that, though. It`s also about the state saying that we know what`s best for women. Women don`t know what`s best for women. Doctors don`t know what`s best for women. Counselors don`t know what`s best for women.

But we, the legislators, who have probably never been in an abortion clinic, have never -- a lot of them -- ever been pregnant or can`t get pregnant since most of them are men, they say, we know what`s best for women, when it`s really -- women who know what`s best for women, in consultation with their doctors and anyone else they`re talking about.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, Nancy, to me the ultrasound laws felt like they presume that women do not know what is happening. And it`s hard for me to tell whether they`re talking sincerely like, oh, honey, you just don`t know, let me explain it to you, or if it`s just about shaming you so that a difficult circumstance becomes even more difficult.

But is there some reason we cannot simply trust that women are fully moral agents as citizens capable of making hard choices, easy choices, all kinds of choices, including this choice?

NORTHUP: Well, you`re right and that`s, of course, what the Supreme Court has said again and again, is that there is a zone of privacy around which people can make the important decisions of their lives. That`s what this is about and whether those decisions are about -- who to marry, the size of your family, how you raise your children, your religious beliefs, that`s what the promise of het Constitution is, and that`s what the stakes are here.

In a free society, we make these critical decisions for ourselves. I would say the ultrasound laws, and the judge really got this in the North Carolina case. We`re thrilled with yesterday`s win.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

NORTHUP: It`s not even just that they`re saying that women don`t know what they`re doing. It`s plain punitive because the North Carolina law said if the woman says, "I don`t want to see this and I don`t want to hear this," she turns away, she covers her ears, the doctor is supposed to keep on napping at her and yapping at her, and so that shows that it`s not about information. It`s about some kind of a punitive performance that the doctor`s supposed to go through, in violation of her or his ethics as well as the patient`s wishes.

HARRIS-PERRY: You know, your point is just well-taken, that I like this image of a zone of privacy. It`s very much like the buffer zone law, but in a kind of broader sense, because similarly we would not presume that if an ultrasound showed certain kinds of field deformities that one should be required to have an abortion, right?

NORTHUP: Of course, of course.

HARRIS-PERRY: So the question of making difficult choices ought to be left within that buffer zone, right, of our privacy where we are allowed to make tough choices that concur with our morals, with our ethics, with our situation.

David S. Cohen and Nancy Northup, Katon Dawson, thank you so much.

Anthea is sticking around a little longer. I want to tell you about special online event this Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. Eastern. MSNBC national reporter Irin Carmon will take your questions on the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Go to MHP.MSNBC.com to submit your questions right now.

Up next, the frightening side of social media and why so many women are being harassed online.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Last month, a Pew Research study found that 73 percent of adults now use social networking sites. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are the new tools of our professional and personal lives. We use them to get information to stay connected to friends, to connect with those who share our interest, and sometimes just to kill time while wait in line.

Our virtual lives are an important part of our real lives. The places where we work and learn and play and relax are increasingly mediated and affected by our online selves. Behind the avatars and 140 characters are flesh and blood people. That mean that what happens online matters, and what is happening to women online should give us pause.

According to the volunteer organization working to halt online abuse, of the nearly 4,000 people reporting online stalking and harassment from 2000 to 2012, 72.5 percent were women, harassment of women. And what was being done and not done to stop it is a subject of the cover story of the "Pacific-Standard" magazine, entitled "Why Women Aren`t Welcome on the Internet". The author, Amanda Hess, is herself a victim of online stalking and harassment.

And her article includes -- or maybe survivor of it. Her article includes several of the specific attacks that she has received via social media. They are so gruesome and so vulgar that I`m nothing going to read them verbatim here. But they include threats of sexual assault and murder.

Amanda writes, "No matter how hard we attempt to ignore it, this type of gender harassment and the sheer volume of it, a severe implication for women status on the Internet, threats of rape, death, and stalking can overpower our emotional bandwidth, take up our time and cost us money through legal fees, online protection services and missed wages.

Joining me today is Amanda Hess, contributor to "Pacific-Standard". Also here, Anthea Butler, professor of religious studies and graduate chair of religion at the University of Pennsylvania. Nancy Giles, contributor to "CBS Sunday Morning." "Feministe" editor and "Guardian" columnist Gil Filipovic. And from San Francisco, Elon James White, managing director and host of "This Week in Blackness."

So happy to have you all here.

NANCY GILES, CBS SUNDAY MORNING: Thank you.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, I want to talk to you about this article and the response you`ve been getting.

AMANDA HESS, CONTRIBUTOR, PACIFIC STANDARD: I wrote this article after I received my most recent sort of bouts this past summer and the threats were obviously distressing. It was an anonymous person on Twitter threatening to come to my house to rape me, to cut off my head.

On the one hand, that`s so completely ludicrous thing to say and that`s, you know, probably not going to happen. But on the other hand, it`s so confusing when you receive threats like that because people are telling you, don`t worry about it, it`s just the Internet, it`s not going to happen. Others are saying it`s your responsibility to track this person down and to prosecute them. And some people are saying if it`s so bad then why don`t you just quit Twitter.

And so, the threats are bad. What`s really confusing is how as person you`re supposed to deal with them.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. You know, we were just talking about the gauntlet that women have to walk in order to receive termination services for pregnancy. And these are the gauntlets you have to walk on when you log onto the Internet, right? And does feel to me, like we have to keep making claim that what occurs online matters in the real world, like even if we were trying to think of the segment, I keep think there just are going to be people who feel like, turn it off. Don`t go over there, stop going over there in virtual world because that world does not matter.

Why does it matter?

JILL FILIPOVIC, EDITOR, FEMINISTE: Well, I think the big disconnect is exactly what you`re say and what Amanda`s piece highlighted, is that there is a sense, I think especially among law enforcement and U.S. laws, that what happens on the Internet is some sort of virtual reality, or as increasingly, we live our lives online. We see photos of our friends` babies on Facebook.

We interact on Twitter. I initially met Amanda online --

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes.

FILIPOVIC: -- through Feministe blogging. You know, I followed you on Twitter before I ever met you on your show or meet you. So, we increasingly network online. My career is writing online. I don`t write for a newspaper. I write for a blog and for the "Guardians" Web site. You can`t tell us to just get off the Internet.

And when you have people coming into your online spaces, coming at you in Twitter and comments on your blogs, essentially telling you, you deserve to be sexually assaulted or even killed for what you`re saying, that`s just as intimidating as, you know, walking through a hallway at work and having somebody hiss at you through a doorway that you should be raped or killed.

I think that`s what people don`t necessarily fully appreciate about the lives that women live and what we receive online in terms of harassment.

HARRIS-PERRY: Jill, your point is about us knowing one another initially virtually. It`s also true with my friendship with Elon.

I mean, Elon, you and I became actual sort of friends, colleagues, following one another`s work all in the virtual world before actually getting to know one another, and, you know, I was saying that part of my life is over. It so ugly in that world now that I just can`t engage in the ways that I initially engaged in social media that, in fact, led to valuable, you know, professional relationships because it is so ugly there.

Talk to me a little bit about how then you can begin to navigate something that is that ugly.

ELON JAMES WHITE, THIS WEEK IN BLACKNESS: I`m not exactly sure, especially with how women are spoken to. Even when they say, the whole thing about, oh, just don`t be there, it`s like that`s -- it`s a terrible idea because like for me personally, my entire career right now is based on the social media platforms that I`ve been using, that I use for my company, for the relationships I use. So, basically you`re telling women you`re not allowed to have that opportunity.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right, exactly.

WHITE: And it`s unfair and it`s unreasonable. And when people say that, it`s literally just ignoring the reality of the world that we`re currently living in. And so, to actually try to navigate those things, a lot of people do things for their own mental health, like blocking people in a heartbeat. Just like, no, that`s just -- that`s not sometimes enough because if you go to an environment and you just know when you go into that environment, you`re going to be abused, whether it`s, quote/unquote, "fake or not fake," it`s still abuse and you don`t want to do it.

Heck, these days, I don`t want to log onto Twitter, let alone if someone was threatening to rape me.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes, yes, absolutely.

Anthea, you have -- you have tweeted pretty honestly and openly about how these cyber bullies jump off the page, jump off, jump off the 140 characters of Facebook or the blog comments and show up in your real life, that it is part of the active attempt to destroy people`s credibility, their capacity to have jobs, that these have very real consequences.

BUTLER: Yes, they do. I can say to you that and you know this and a lot of other academics know this, that once you say something that somebody doesn`t like, they start calling them off. They call your provost`s office, they call your dean`s office. We want to get them off, you want to shut them up, we want to do all kinds of things.

But what they don`t seem to understand is that we are real life people. If they walk up to me and wanted to say this to my face, I`m like, come on, because basically, I`m like, I dare you. Because I bet you won`t say it to my face first of all, and second of all, the Penn University police will not let you get that close to me, OK? So, that`s part of it.

But the other part of it is that sometimes, this is very coordinated and I think one of the things we have to talk about are how other bloggers, other twitters, other people who are active in social media actually attack other people and there are sites and we all know this one by somebody who just got sold to Salem Communications and everybody knows who that is, who`d send people to come and attack you, when they don`t like what they do.

So, these are coordinated attacks. These are not just the random guys sit around his boxer shorts saying "I hate this woman." But they are also coordinate. They are paid for. They are people who say let`s go do this to this person because we want to take them down.

And so, what I want people to understand, especially Twitter to understand, is that this service that was so great two or three years ago is now a cesspool of crap, and it`s so hard to use it the way we used to be able to use it, to talk and reduce it.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right, right. So, I do want -- I do want to be careful that -- this isn`t exclusively a Twitter issue.

BUTLER: No.

HARRIS-PERRY: And that part of -- I think as we come back, we`ll talk a little bit about solutions in part because, again, I met Jill on Twitter, I met Elon on Twitter.

And not only that, but in a world where there is so much information, I use the signaling effort. I want to follow people I disagree with, I want to follow people I agree with, because it`s valuable to me to get that information. So, when I get back, we`ll talk a little bit about the solutions look like and whether or not we can redeem the value, right, all the positive values in this context.

(CXOMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: We`re back to talk about the "Pacific Standard" article, why women are not welcome on the Internet and sort of all the questions about online harassment, that it raises.

Nancy, I want to get you in here.

GILES: Well, you know, it`s so funny. I mean, among other things, I`m a woman, I love being a woman. It`s hard being a woman. It`s just hard, all right?

And CBS pays me because they value my opinions, which is lovely. And you have me on for the same reason. If your opinion isn`t something that matches up with people, I`ll say men for the most part because I can`t believe other women are saying the same kind of things back at us, the kind of sexual violent imagery, the kind of violent attacking on how you look, how you smell, these really vicious things that just are exponentially over the top and beyond the pale, it`s fascinating.

As a woman, I wouldn`t say something like that to a man that I disagreed with, but the vitriol, it`s just -- it`s astounding. It`s shocking.

HARRIS-PERRY: I found, when those moments happen and you`re suddenly being attacked, sometimes it`s the one person who is obsessing over you and you`re getting that. But sometimes it`s kind of broader sort of tidal waves of it.

And I find it to be very triggering. Find the very sense of -- that what we`re told to do is what rape survivors are often told do, which is don`t say anything because if you say anything, right, if you push back, then you are at risk for greater violence and you are at risk that the people you care and love about will be violated as well. So, if people jump in your defense, then they do will -- and so, you just feel like, oh, I`m going to go at this corner and hide, and that is that emotion of assault and of survival.

HESS: Yes. And that`s sort of the paradox of writing the story to begin with. But one of these sort of important things I think to come out of this, is that it should not be a problem that women are dealing with on their own. That there are legal institutions and there are technology companies that really sort of have a responsibility to make our communities safe for women.

HARRIS-PERRY: Is this a Title 7 employment discrimination issue?

FILIPOVIC: I think it is. You know, the Internet is where many people work. It`s where we socialize. And when women are so unwelcomed and so harassed out of these spaces, it has a real impact on our livelihoods and our lives.

I mean, you know, it is very comparable to not letting, having, not letting someone have a seat at a diner, even thought it`s a private institution, you know? Or not letting a woman into a workplace even though it might be a private company.

These things, it is gender discrimination and it`s very, very harmful.

HARRIS-PERRY: So, Elon, help me through this for a second, because it feels to me like one possibility are a set of new policies, regulations and laws, but part one of what we love about the Internet is its relative freedom. It`s a kind of libertarian space.

But I also worried about just turning the rules of that space back on itself. So, like getting other kinds of gang violence online to mess with the gang violence and it`s occurring like that also feels unproductive to me. Are there ways to protect the liberty, protect, you know, questions of levels of anonymity that we care about, but also somehow make this space safer for people to engage?

WHITE: I believe so. And the fact is that the companies, the big tech companies have to take into consideration what people need for their own safety. Like, for example, with Google+, they weren`t allowing people to have an account without have -- unless they put their real name not acknowledging the fact that, you know what? Some people don`t want their real names out there, because they don`t want those attacks to possibly become real.

The tech companies have to actually start to look at how this is happening, what`s happening, and try to implement certain types of solutions that can actually allow for conversation because no one doesn`t want conversation, because that`s the first thing people want. Just want to stop free speech. Like no, everyone wants free speech but you know what? You`ve got to see what`s being said. And we`re talking around women.

And especially, let`s be honest here around women of color. They get the double dose of sexism and racism at the exact same time. So, they have to take those things into consideration and not just completely shut everything off, but constantly, constantly be looking for new and interesting ways that can allow for the conversation to happen. But at the same time, keep people safe.

HARRIS-PERRY: Yes. With just 15 seconds left here, Amanda. I do want to point out, you made such a strong point that there is, that that anonymity question, often women who make their lives in public space are not anonymous online, are actual names and jobs and places and where we work and often where we live, are available. But the folks who are doing the stocking or the harassing are quite anonymous.

And it feels like there`s got to be something we can do to change that imbalance.

HESS: Right. I mean, one of the problems is that, you know, the people who are saying the Internet isn`t real, it`s very easy to say that if you`re hiding in your basement, threatening people, it`s easy to say that if you`re a police officer who doesn`t want to take a report. It`s a lot harder to say that if you`re a woman just trying to do her job on the Internet.

So, it`s difficult to know how to approach that. On the one hand, you know, police officers don`t have a lot of resources and information. Technology companies have all the resources in the world, and I think the problem that you`re seeing in both of those places is that they`re extremely male-dominated.

You know, we look to tech companies to innovate, to sort of bring us things that we never could have imagined and so I think we can ask them to bring us solutions on this problem as well.

HARRIS-PERRY: Right. To address this asymmetry with the resources and intelligence and innovation that they have.

HESS: Right.

HARRIS-PERRY: Amanda Hess, Anthea Butler, Nancy Giles, Jill Filipovic, and Elon James White -- who, of course, joined us virtually, just to prove the point that virtual relationships exist.

Up next, we`re going make a happy moment at the end of this show. The 12-year-old bow tie mogul making a difference in kids` lives. My foot soldier joins me live, and you`re not going want to miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS-PERRY: Skinny ties, white ties, Ascots bowties, silk knit ties, whatever the type of tie, men`s neck wear is usually reserved for special occasions and uniforms or the office. But our foot soldier this week is designing bowties that aid his community and make formal wear fashionable anywhere, even on the playground.

Twelve-year-old Mo Bridges launched his bowtie company, Mo`s Bows in 2011, after his great grandmother, a seamstress for 60 years, taught him how to sew. The sixth grader now uses his $80,000 company to sell one of a kind bowties and change the lives of other children in his community.

For the past three years, Mo has had one bowtie a year called the Go Mo Summer Camp Bowtie. Proceeds from the sale of that tie go to a scholarship fund that sends Memphis kids to summer camp, where, as Mo says, they not only get to have fun, they get to have a meal.

This week, Mo is launching the 2014 Go Mo scholarship bowtie.

Joining me now from Memphis, Tennessee, is the 12-year-old CEO of Mo`s Bows, Mo Bridges, and with him is his mother, and his words, monager, Tramica Morris (ph).

So, nice to have you with us.

TRAMICA BRIDGES, MO`S MOTHER: Hello. Thank you for having us.

MO BRIDGES, CEO, MO`S BOWS: Hey.

HARRIS-PERRY: Hey, Mo. So tell me about the tie you`re wearing. Is that this year`s Go Mo bowtie?

M. BRIDGES: Yes, it is this year`s go mo bowtie. And I want to wish you a happy New Year and thank you for having me on your show.

HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, thank you. I appreciate the happy New Year.

Now, tell me, so, you started this business at 9 years old. What made you decide to start a business?

M. BRIDGES: Well, I started business because I really like to dress up, and I couldn`t find any other bowties I really liked. So, I reached out to my grandmother and she showed me how to sew. After that, I wore my bow ties. When I was out, people would just say, hey, I like that bowtie. And that was the demand for my business.

HARRIS-PERRY: Ms. Morris, whenever I see young people who are doing amazing things, almost always, there is an adult who actually listened to them and supported them. So when you have a 9-year-old coming to you and saying, first of all, I want to learn to sew, and I want to learn to sell -- how do you make that decision that this isn`t just a kind of side item, this is something to really support your child in?

T. BRIDGES: Well, actually, Melissa, the fact that Mo has always been -- when I allowed him to dress himself, he chose to wear a suit and tie. So, on a Saturday going to the grocery store, I am in flip flops and a dress or something. And Mo is in a complete suit.

So, I knew there was a sense of style and a sense of fashion early on. So I was not surprised when he said, hey, I want to start a business, and I want to sell ties. I thought that was just perfect for him.

HARRIS-PERRY: Now, Mo, starting a business is one thing. And having a sense of fashion is one thing. But you also decided to start the summer camp scholarship.

That`s something else. What made you want to give back?

M. BRIDGES: Well, you know, Melissa, I figure, why not help a kid? Because kids are fun, and they`re cool. You just have to -- you have to be generous because -- and I also like to give back to my community at the same time.

HARRIS-PERRY: I love that. So what happens at that camp that is valuable? Why do you think of camp as an important place for kids to go?

M. BRIDGES: Well, I figured that if I went there, then other kids will like it, because I liked it. And, you know, it`s hot in Memphis and kids just need to go swimming and they need to be a kid.

And it`s also -- it`s also the highest at child hunger in Memphis. And -- because kids need a meal, and they don`t have a meal in summer, so I figured that if they go to summer camp, then they can have a meal.

HARRIS-PERRY: I love all of that.

One last thing I want to ask you. My grandmother was a seamstress. And my mother is wonderful at sewing. There`s such important parts.

Tell me about your relationship with your great grandmother. How has she inspired you?

M. BRIDGES: Well, my grandmother inspired me, because she -- she taught me how to sew, and she like -- she was -- she -- everybody will come to her and I used to grow up playing in her sewing room and I saw these really cool fabrics. And so I asked her how to teach me how to sew and she did.

HARRIS-PERRY: Tramica Morris, I just want to thank you for being a mom who has stood up behind that young man and made sure he could be his full self, because he is pretty amazing.

T. BRIDGES: Thank you.

HARRIS-PERRY: And thank you to Mo Bridges for that fashion style, for that sense of generosity and for that business acumen -- I can`t wait to see the multimillionaire magnate you`re going to become and the good you`re going to do in the world.

That`s our show for today. Thanks to you at home for watching. I`m going to see you tomorrow morning, 10:00 a.m. Eastern.

CeCe McDonald will join us for her first television interview since she was released from reason. Also, actress Laverne Cox of "Orange is a New Block," who literally picked CeCe up from prison is going to be right here in Nerdland. You`re not going to want to miss that.

But right now, it is time for a preview of "WEEKENDS WITH ALEX WITT".

Hi, Alex.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>